- THE FOLLOWING PROGRAM IS PART OF OUR "HERE AND NOW" 2018
WISCONSIN VOTE ELECTION COVERAGE.
- I'M FREDERICA FREYBERG.
TONIGHT ON "HERE AND NOW," WHY SOME VOTERS
WERE LEFT OFF THE ROLLS ON TUESDAY.
A CLOSER LOOK AT THE GUN LAW DEBATE
AT THE STATE CAPITOL THIS WEEK.
AND A LOOK AT CHANGES IN THE FOODSHARE PROGRAM.
IT'S "HERE AND NOW" FOR FEBRUARY 23.
- FUNDING FOR "HERE AND NOW" IS PROVIDED, IN PART,
BY FRIENDS OF WISCONSIN PUBLIC TELEVISION.
- STATE VOTERS IN TUESDAY'S SPRING PRIMARY ELECTION NARROWED
THE STATE SUPREME COURT FIELD DOWN TO TWO.
SAUK COUNTY JUDGE MICHAEL SCRENOCK TALLIED 46% OF THE
VOTE, FOLLOWED BY MILWAUKEE COUNTY JUDGE REBECCA DALLET,
WHO GARNERED 36%.
MADISON ATTORNEY TIM BURNS WAS ELIMINATED FROM THE RACE WITH
18%.
CANDIDATES SCRENOCK AND DALLET HAVE COMMITTED TO A DEBATE ON
FRIDAY NIGHT, MARCH 30 IN A LIVE BROADCAST COSPONSORED BY
WISCONSIN PUBLIC TELEVISION AND WISCONSIN PUBLIC RADIO.
TUESDAY'S SPRING ELECTION TURNOUT WAS ABOVE AVERAGE.
NEARLY 12% OF VOTING AGED RESIDENTS PUSHED THROUGH BAD
WEATHER TO CAST THEIR BALLOTS.
THERE WERE A FEW SNAGS HOWEVER, INCLUDING REPORTS OF VOTERS
WHOSE NAMES WERE ERRONEOUSLY PURGED
FROM THE REGISTRATION ROLLS.
THAT AFTER STATE ELECTIONS OFFICIALS SENT 343,000 POSTCARDS
TO VOTERS IN NOVEMBER BECAUSE THEY WERE
THOUGHT TO HAVE MOVED.
IF RECIPIENTS OF THE CARDS DID NOT RESPOND,
THEY WERE DEACTIVATED FROM THE VOTING ROLLS.
NOW TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THIS,
WE ARE JOINED BY WISCONSIN ELECTIONS COMMISSION PUBLIC
INFORMATION OFFICER REID MAGNEY.
THANKS FOR BEING HERE. - YOU'RE WELCOME.
- HOW MANY VOTERS HAVE YOU DETERMINED WERE INACCURATELY
REMOVED FROM THE VOTING ROLLS?
- AT THIS POINT WE'VE ONLY HEARD FROM LESS THAN 20 PEOPLE.
WE'RE ASKING PEOPLE IF THIS HAPPENED TO YOU,
PLEASE CONTACT US.
WE'VE FOUND THAT THERE WERE SOME PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY DID MOVE AND
THEY SHOULD HAVE HAD TO RE-REGISTER
AND THEY IGNORED THE POSTCARD.
OR WE'VE ACTUALLY FOUND A COUPLE OF PEOPLE WHO WERE ERRONEOUSLY
MARKED DEAD, IN A DIFFERENT SORT OF THING, DIFFERENT ISSUE.
SO WE REALLY WANT TO HEAR FROM PEOPLE.
WE REALLY WANT TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF IT.
- AND DID IT REALLY MOSTLY HAVE TO DO WITH PEOPLE JUST NOT
RESPONDING TO THOSE POSTCARDS?
- WELL, IT COULD HAVE BEEN THAT.
IT COULD HAVE ALSO HAD TO DO WITH THE WAY WE MATCH DATA.
SOMETIMES THE DMV HAS INFORMATION BASED ON THEIR
ADDRESS ONE WAY AND WE MIGHT HAVE IT
IN THE VOTER RECORDS ANOTHER WAY.
AND WE'RE -- THIS IS THE FIRST TIME WE'VE DONE
THIS KIND OF A MATCH.
AND SO I THINK WE'RE LEARNING FROM IT.
WE REALLY WANT TO TAKE STEPS TO MAKE SURE THAT NOTHING LIKE THIS
HAPPENS IN APRIL OR AUGUST OR NOVEMBER.
- AND HOW DO YOU INTEND TO DO THAT?
WHAT KIND OF CHANGES ARE YOU ANTICIPATING?
- WELL, AGAIN, WE WANT TO LEARN FROM WHAT HAPPENED.
WE ARE LOOKING AT A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT OPTIONS.
WE'RE PLANNING TO PRESENT A PLAN TO THE COMMISSION ON MARCH 13.
- YOU SAID THAT IT WAS A SMALL NUMBER THAT YOU KNOW OF
RIGHT NOW. - RIGHT.
- YOUR EXPECTATION IS THAT PERHAPS THERE WERE OTHER PEOPLE
OUT THERE THAT HAD HAPPENED TO. - YES.
- BUT IT WAS STATEWIDE, RIGHT? - YES.
THIS WAS NOT TARGETED TO ANY ONE PARTICULAR AREA.
NOT TARGETED AT WHO PEOPLE SUPPORT.
WE'VE HEARD SOME PEOPLE WONDERING,
"ARE THEY TRYING TO GET RID OF CERTAIN TYPES OF VOTERS?"
THAT'S NOT HOW THE WISCONSIN ELECTIONS COMMISSION DOES BUSINESS.
THE COMMISSION IS BIPARTISAN.
THE STAFF IS NONPARTISAN.
WE REALLY WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE
ARE REGISTERED AND ARE VOTING.
- SO WHAT HAPPENED TO VOTERS WHO WENT TO THE POLLS AND THEIR
NAMES WEREN'T ON THERE?
- SO BASICALLY THEY HAD TO RE-REGISTER.
SO FAR WE'RE NOT UNAWARE OF ANYONE
WHO WAS UNABLE TO RE-REGISTER.
YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE PROOF OF RESIDENCE.
I THINK I'VE HEARD OF A COUPLE PEOPLE WHO MAYBE HAD TO GO BACK
HOME AND GET THAT-- WHETHER IT'S A UTILITY BILL
OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
WE APOLOGIZE FOR THOSE KIND OF PROBLEMS IF THAT HAPPENED.
BUT WE'RE NOT AWARE OF ANYONE WHO WAS UNABLE TO VOTE.
- WHY DID THE STATE UNDERTAKE THIS ENDEAVOR OF CLEANING UP
THESE VOTER ROLLS?
- SO IN 2016 WE JOINED SOMETHING CALLED ERIC,
THE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION INFORMATION CENTER.
IT'S A CONSORTIUM OF MORE THAN 20 STATES THAT SHARE DATA AND
WORK WITH THEM TO REALLY HELP FIRST TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE
WHO AREN'T REGISTERED GET REGISTERED AND THEN TO MAKE SURE
THAT OUR VOTER ROLLS ARE ACCURATE.
IN 2016 WE SENT OUT MORE THAN A MILLION POSTCARDS TO PEOPLE WHO
WE THOUGHT WERE ELIGIBLE TO VOTE BUT NOT REGISTERED.
WE REALLY WANT TO GET PEOPLE REGISTERED.
THE SECOND PART OF THAT IS LOOKING AT OKAY,
WHO'S MAYBE MOVED AND NEEDS TO REGISTER BECAUSE IF YOU MOVE
EVEN IF YOU LIVE IN AN APARTMENT BUILDING AND YOU MOVE FROM
APARTMENT A TO APARTMENT B, YOU NEED TO RE-REGISTER.
AND SOME PEOPLE DON'T REALIZE THAT.
- YET, AGAIN, IN WISCONSIN
YOU CAN REGISTER SAME DAY AS YOU VOTE.
- YES, THAT'S THE FAIL-SAFE IN WISCONSIN.
THAT'S WHY WE FELT COMFORTABLE DOING IT.
NOW, WE'RE GOING TO MAKE SURE THAT NOBODY RUNS INTO
THIS PROBLEM GOING FORWARD.
- ESPECIALLY BECAUSE WE'RE COMING INTO A GENERAL ELECTION
WHERE TURNOUT COULD BE MUCH, MUCH HIGHER.
- RIGHT.
INSTEAD OF 12%, WE'RE LOOKING IN NOVEMBER 50% TO 55%.
- WHILE WE HAVE YOU HERE, WE JUST WANTED TO ASK YOU THE
STATUS OF THE ELECTIONS COMMISSIONER MICHAEL HAAS.
- WE'RE HAVING A SPECIAL MEETING NEXT FRIDAY, MARCH 2,
AT WHICH THE COMMISSION IS GOING TO ADDRESS THAT.
THERE'S NOT A LOT I CAN SAY RIGHT NOW.
BUT STAY TUNED FOR THAT.
- ALL RIGHT.
REID MAGNEY, THANKS VERY MUCH.
- YOU'RE WELCOME.
- THE SCHOOL SHOOTING IN FLORIDA HAS SPARKED NATIONAL
OUTRAGE AND DIALOGUE, AGAIN.
THE WISCONSIN LEGISLATURE ALSO DEBATED AND ACTED ON GUN
VIOLENCE IN SCHOOLS.
IN A MOMENT, WE'LL HEAR WHAT PASSED THIS WEEK AT THE CAPITOL
AND WHY SOME DON'T THINK IT GOES FAR ENOUGH.
BUT FIRST A LOOK AT A PROPOSAL TO INTRODUCE SOMETHING IN THE
STATE LEGISLATURE CALLED A LETHAL VIOLENCE PROTECTIVE
ORDER, MORE COMMONLY KNOWN AS A RED FLAG LAW,
WHICH ALLOWS A COURT TO ORDER THE REMOVAL OF GUNS FROM SOMEONE
SHOWING SIGNS OF MENTAL HEALTH CRISIS OR ESCALATING THREATS.
IT WOULD ALLOW THE SEIZING OF GUNS
BEFORE SOMEONE CAN COMMIT VIOLENCE.
SUCH A BILL WAS INTRODUCED IN WISCONSIN LAST SESSION BY
DEMOCRATS BUT IT DIED IN COMMITTEE.
A SIMILAR BILL COULD BE REINTRODUCED.
WE SAT DOWN WITH A PROPONENT OF THIS KIND OF LAW.
SHEL GROSS IS DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC POLICY FOR MENTAL HEALTH AMERICA
OF WISCONSIN AND MEMBER
OF THE WISCONSIN COUNCIL ON MENTAL HEALTH.
WE STARTED BY ASKING WHAT A LETHAL VIOLENCE PROTECTIVE ORDER DOES.
- IT'S A JUDICIAL PROCESS THAT WOULD ALLOW EITHER A LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR OTHER INDIVIDUALS IN A PERSON'S LIFE
TO REQUEST A-- FIRST A TEMPORARY AND THEN A LONGER-TERM
INJUNCTION TO REMOVE ANY FIREARMS
THEY MIGHT HAVE IN THEIR POSSESSION.
WOULD ALSO PREVENT THEM FROM PURCHASING ADDITIONAL FIREARMS.
AND SPECIFICALLY WE'D BE TARGETING INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE
BELIEVED TO BE IN DANGER OF HARMING THEMSELVES OR DANGER OF
HARMING OTHER PEOPLE.
- WHY IS IT CALLED "FAMILIES KNOW FIRST" LEGISLATION?
- SO THAT'S ACTUALLY A TERM THAT WAS USED WHEN THE BILL
WAS INTRODUCED LAST SESSION.
AND IT REALLY HAS TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT VERY OFTEN
FAMILY MEMBERS ARE SEEING SOMETHING IN THEIR LOVED ONE
THAT IS CONCERNING.
THEY'RE HEARING THEM TALK ABOUT KILLING THEMSELVES OR THEY'RE
HEARING THEM TALK MAYBE NOT SPECIFIC THREATS ABOUT KILLING
OTHER PEOPLE, BUT JUST THINGS THAT ARE CONCERNING TO THEM.
AND VERY OFTEN, THERE'S LITTLE THEY CAN DO.
AS YOU KNOW, IN WISCONSIN WE HAVE EMERGENCY DETENTION AND
INVOLUNTARY COMMITMENT, BUT YOU HAVE TO BE
SOMEBODY IDENTIFIED WITH A MENTAL ILLNESS.
SOMETIMES PEOPLE WHO ARE EXPRESSING THESE THINGS
HAVE NOT BEEN SO IDENTIFIED.
IT'S A HIGHER BAR, AS IT SHOULD BE,
BECAUSE THEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT ACTUALLY LOCKING SOMEBODY
UP IN A PSYCHIATRIC FACILITY.
SO THIS PROVIDES A WAY ALSO FOR FAMILIES TO BE ABLE TO AT LEAST
HELP KEEP THE FAMILY MEMBER A LITTLE BIT SAFER IF THERE ARE
THESE WARNING SIGNS.
- FIVE STATES CURRENTLY HAVE RED FLAG LAWS ON THE BOOKS.
18 OTHER STATES HAVE PROPOSED THEM.
THIS WEEK IN THE STATE ASSEMBLY, THE GUN DEBATE ESCALATED WITH
DEMOCRATS CALLING FOR UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECKS.
REPUBLICANS INSTEAD PASSED A BILL THAT ALLOWS FUNDING OF
GRANTS TO SCHOOLS TO PROVIDE FIREARMS TO SAFETY OFFICERS.
THE SAME BILL STRENGTHENS RESTRICTIONS ON STRAW PURCHASES.
WE TALK WITH BOTH SIDES OF THIS ISSUE,
STARTING WITH REPUBLICAN REPRESENTATIVE JOE SANFELIPPO
OF NEW BERLIN.
WE MET UP WITH HIM AT HIS ASSEMBLY OFFICE AND STARTED BY
ASKING WHY THE REPUBLICAN REJECTION OF UNIVERSAL
BACKGROUND CHECKS.
- SO I THINK THAT, I MEAN, WHAT WE'VE SEEN IN MOST OF THESE
HORRIFIC INCIDENTS THAT HAVE TAKEN PLACE IS THAT A BACKGROUND
CHECK DIDN'T STOP, BECAUSE THE INDIVIDUALS HAD GONE THROUGH
BACKGROUND CHECKS AND THEY STILL WERE ABLE TO PULL OFF THESE
CRIMES.
SO WE'RE INTERESTED IN TAKING A LOOK AT ANYTHING THAT IS GOING
TO HELP THE SITUATION.
BUT I DON'T LIKE TO DO KNEE-JERK REACTIONS WHERE WE SAY,
OH LET'S QUICK RUN OUT AND DO THESE BACKGROUND CHECKS CAUSE
AGAIN, MOST OF THESE INDIVIDUALS HAVE PASSED A BACKGROUND CHECK,
AND SO THERE ISN'T ANYTHING WE COULD HAVE DONE FROM THE
BACKGROUND CHECK STANDPOINT THAT WOULD HAVE PREVENTED THIS
PARTICULAR CASE THAT WE'VE JUST SEEN LAST WEEK.
- A MADISON DEMOCRAT IN THE ASSEMBLY SAYS THIS,
"ASSEMBLY REPUBLICANS SHOW
THEY ARE IN THE DEATH GRIP OF THE NRA."
WHAT'S YOUR RESPONSE TO THAT?
- YOU KNOW I THINK THAT'S JUST NONSENSE BECAUSE IN THE END,
WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO IS BALANCE OUR FREEDOMS
IN THE COUNTRY, RIGHT?
I MEAN NO MATTER WHATEVER FREEDOM WE'RE TALKING ABOUT,
IF IT'S SECOND AMENDMENT, IF IT'S VOTING RIGHTS OR WHATNOT,
THERE'S RESPONSIBILITIES THAT COME ALONG WITH EVERY RIGHT.
SO WE AS LEGISLATORS HAVE TO FIND THAT BALANCING ACT OF WHERE
EVERYBODY IS PROTECTED.
I THINK WHEN YOU TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT THE NRA -- I MEAN,
THERE'S STUDIES THAT HAVE BEEN OUT THERE THAT WHAT THE NRA
SPENDS ON THEIR POLITICAL ACTIVITIES IS MINIMAL PERCENTAGE
AND IT MIRRORS OR IT REALLY DOESN'T HAVE ANY EFFECT.
BUT WE HAVE TO JUST TAKE A LOOK AT THE POLICIES TO SEE WHY WE
ARE FINDING OURSELVES IN THESE SITUATIONS,
ARE BECOMING A LITTLE MORE PREVALENT THAN WE'VE SEEN IN THE
PAST AND REALLY GET TO THE ROOT OF THE CAUSE.
- AS OPPOSED TO THAT UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECK,
AN AMENDMENT OFFERED INSTEAD OF THAT WOULD ALLOW FUNDING ARMED
SAFETY OFFICERS IN SCHOOLS.
HOW WOULD THAT WORK?
- I THINK REPRESENTATIVE KLEEFISCH MADE SOME GREAT POINTS
WHEN HE TALKED ABOUT THAT.
WE SPEND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS PROTECTING GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS,
PROTECTING SPORTING VENUES.
EVERYWHERE YOU GO, WHERE THERE ARE WHETHER IT'S DIGNITARIES OR
JUST LARGE AMOUNTS OF PUBLIC, WE HAVE ARMED GUARDS THERE.
BUT WE DON'T DO IT IN OUR SCHOOL.
AND FOR SOMEHOW, SOME PEOPLE SEEM TO THINK THAT'S SUCH A
HORRIBLE IDEA.
BUT OUR CHILDREN ARE OUR MOST IMPORTANT ASSETS THAT ANYBODY
HAS IN THEIR LIFE.
THAT'S THE WAY WE VALUE KIDS.
SO WHY WOULDN'T WE WANT TO PROTECT THEM?
WHAT THIS BILL WOULD DO IS PROVIDE SOME GRANT FUNDING TO
SCHOOL DISTRICT TO MAKE THE DECISION ON THEIR OWN IF THEY
WANT TO PUT SECURITY AND SAFETY OFFICERS IN THE SCHOOLS.
AND WE WOULD HELP THEM PAY FOR THAT IN ORDER TO DO THAT.
AND I THINK THAT'S A GREAT WAY TO TAKE CARE OF A PROBLEM,
AT LEAST IN THE LONG RUN.
NOW, WE HAVE TO GET TO THE ROOT OF WHAT THE CAUSE OF THIS
PROBLEM IS AND THAT'S GOING TO BE A LITTLE BIT LONGER TIME.
BUT IN THE IMMEDIATE FUTURE, THIS IS AN IMPORTANT STEP.
- DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE ROOT IS?
- I THINK -- I DON'T.
AND I THINK THAT WE NEED TO REALLY SPEND SOME TIME TO TAKE A
LOOK AT WHY 10 OR 15 OR 20 YEARS AGO OUR KIDS NEVER EVEN HAD
THESE IDEAS TO GO AND SHOOT UP A SCHOOL OR DO THINGS LIKE THIS.
AND NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN THEY HAVE THESE IDEAS.
SO WHY?
WHAT HAS CHANGED IN OUR SOCIETY TO MAKE OUR YOUNG PEOPLE FEEL
LIKE THIS IS -- I DON'T WANT TO SAY ACCEPTABLE,
BECAUSE NOBODY -- I DON'T REALLY THINK THEY THINK IT'S
ACCEPTABLE, BUT THEY'RE DOING IT FOR -- THEY WANT TO BE FAMOUS OR
THEY THINK IT'S A MEANS THAT CAN BE USED.
WE NEED TO REALLY TAKE A LOOK AT THAT.
I THINK FOCUSING IN MAYBE ON THE MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES
IS GOING TO BE KEY.
- THERE'S A LOT OF TALK RIGHT NOW
ABOUT BANNING ASSAULT TYPE WEAPONS.
WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THAT?
- AGAIN, IN 2016, ACCORDING TO THE FBI STATS,
WE HAD A LITTLE OVER 300 PEOPLE KILLED WITH LONG GUNS.
WE HAD OVER 700 PEOPLE KILLED JUST BY BEING KICKED OR BEATEN
TO DEATH AND 1200 KILLED IN STABBING DEATHS.
SO WE'RE FOCUSING ON THE VEHICLE THAT HAS BEEN USED TO COMMIT THE
CRIME, BUT WE'RE NOT FOCUSING ON WHAT IS CAUSING THE CRIME TO BE
COMMITTED IN THE FIRST PLACE.
AND THAT I THINK IS WHERE OUR FOCUS NEEDS TO BE.
BECAUSE WE COULD PASS SOME TOUGHER, ADDITIONAL GUN LAWS.
WE COULD PASS BACKGROUND CHECKS AND THEN WE'LL PAT OURSELVES ON
THE BACK AND SAY WE DID SOMETHING.
BUT I DON'T THINK WE HAVE REALLY ADDRESSED THE PROBLEM UNTIL WE
FIND OUT WHAT IS CAUSING IT. - ALL RIGHT.
REPRESENTATIVE SANFELIPPO, THANKS YOU VERY MUCH.
- THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.
- REPRESENTATIVE SANFELIPPO ALSO SAYS HE'S ALL FOR ARMING
SCHOOL TEACHERS IN WISCONSIN.
AS FOR DEMOCRATS, IN ADDITION TO CALLING FOR UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND
CHECKS THAT WOULD REQUIRE CHECKS ON PEOPLE BUYING AT GUN SHOWS OR
ONLINE IN ADDITION TO PURCHASES FROM LICENSED DEALERS,
THEY ALSO CALL FOR BANNING PEOPLE WITH MISDEMEANOR DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE CONVICTIONS FROM BUYING FIREARMS
AND A BAN ON BUMP STOCKS.
DEMOCRATIC REPRESENTATIVE CHRIS TAYLOR OF MADISON CALLS THE
ASSEMBLY REPUBLICANS IRRESPONSIBLE
FOR REJECTING SUCH ACTION.
SHE JOINS US NOW.
THANKS VERY MUCH FOR BEING HERE. - THANKS FOR HAVING ME.
- SO THE PRESIDENT WANTS TO SEE ARMED TEACHERS AND OUR OWN
ATTORNEY GENERAL IS ALSO OPEN TO IT.
WHAT'S YOUR RESPONSE TO THAT?
- WELL, TEACHERS ARE NOT ASKING TO BE ARMED AND STUDENTS ARE NOT
ASKING FOR ARMED GUARDS AT THEIR SCHOOLS.
WHAT STUDENTS AND FACULTY ON CAMPUSES ARE ASKING US TO DO IS
PLEASE PREVENT DANGEROUS PEOPLE FROM GETTING WEAPONS IN THE
FIRST PLACE.
ADDRESS THE FUNDAMENTAL CAUSE OF WHAT'S GOING ON WITH PEOPLE
GETTING EASY ACCESS TO FIREARMS WHO ARE DANGEROUS
AND THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE THEM.
- DON'T ARMED OFFICERS IN SCHOOLS, THOUGH,
ADDRESS ONE PRONG OF SCHOOL SAFETY?
- YOU KNOW, I SHOULD SAY THE SCHOOL IN FLORIDA WHERE THE
HORRIBLE RECENT MASSACRE OCCURRED,
THEY DID HAVE AN ARMED GUARD THERE.
IT DIDN'T CHANGE ANYTHING.
THERE'S NO EVIDENCE IT CHANGES ANYTHING.
WHAT WE DO KNOW THOUGH IS BACKGROUND CHECKS CAN HELP
PREVENT A DANGEROUS PERSON FROM GETTING A WEAPON.
20% OF GUN SALES ARE NO QUESTIONS ASKED.
THEY'RE DONE AT GUN SHOWS.
THEY'RE DONE ON THE INTERNET.
NO QUESTIONS ASKED.
AND SO WE KNOW IT'S GOING TO TAKE A LOT OF STEPS,
MY COLLEAGUES AND I, MY DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES AND I KNOW
THERE'S GOING TO BE A LOT OF STEPS NEEDED TO STEM THIS
HORRIBLE TIDE OF GUN VIOLENCE.
BACKGROUND CHECKS IS A COMMON SENSE FIRST STEP.
IT'S NOT GOING TO SOLVE EVERYTHING BUT IT'S GOING TO
ADDRESS SOME OF THE ISSUES.
- IN FACT IN THE CASE OF THE FLORIDA SHOOTER,
IT WOULDN'T HAVE PREVENTED HIM FROM HAVING THAT GUN BECAUSE
HE BOUGHT IT FROM A GUN STORE. - RIGHT.
WE HAVE MANY OTHER LAWS THAT ARE PENDING.
WE HIGHLIGHTED THREE COMMON SENSE LAWS IN OUR PLEA TO
REPUBLICAN LEGISLATORS BECAUSE WE THOUGHT HOW COULD ANYONE
OPPOSE THESE LAWS?
90% OF OUR NATION SUPPORTS BACKGROUND CHECKS.
IN WISCONSIN POLLING, BACKGROUND CHECKS ARE SUPPORTED BY EVERY
COMMUNITY.
DOESN'T MATTER IF YOU'RE RURAL, SUBURBAN, URBAN.
SO WE THOUGHT THESE THREE PROPOSALS WE WERE HIGHLIGHTING
THAT HAD BEEN SITTING IN THE LEGISLATURE WITH NO ACTION WERE
JUST SO COMMON SENSE THAT NO ONE COULD OPPOSE THEM.
BUT WE ALSO HAVE A LOT OF OTHER PIECES OF LEGISLATION,
GUN LEGISLATION.
I HAVE A 48-HOUR WAITING PERIOD.
THERE'S PROBABLY GOING TO BE A RED FLAG PIECE OF LEGISLATION
INTRODUCED, WHERE A PARENT OR LAW ENFORCEMENT
COULD FLAG A DANGEROUS PERSON FOR A JUDGE,
SO MAYBE THAT WOULD HAVE HAD A DIFFERENCE.
FLORIDA DOES NOT HAVE THAT TYPE OF LAW.
WE ALSO DID -- WE'VE HAD INCIDENTS IN WISCONSIN THAT
MAYBE COULD HAVE BEEN STOPPED WITH A BACKGROUND CHECK.
WE HAD A HORRIBLE INCIDENT AT A SPA IN THE BROOKFIELD AREA.
THAT SHOOTER WAS NOT SUPPOSED TO HAVE A GUN.
THERE WAS A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE RESTRAINING ORDER AGAINST HIM.
BUT HE GOT A GUN ON THE INTERNET.
SO WE KNOW BACKGROUND CHECKS IS NOT GOING TO SOLVE ALL OF OUR
PROBLEMS, BUT WE THOUGHT IT'S SUCH A COMMON SENSE FIRST STEP.
- WHAT DO YOU KNOW ABOUT THE STATUS OF ANY RED FLAG LAW
BECAUSE WE ACTUALLY SPOKE TO THAT EARLIER IN THE PROGRAM?
IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU THINK
THE MAJORITY WOULD BE RESPONSIVE TO?
- THAT'S SOMETHING WE'RE GOING TO FIND OUT.
I DON'T THINK REPUBLICANS ARE GOING TO BE RESPONSIVE TO THAT.
IF THEY'RE NOT RESPONSIVE TO BACKGROUND CHECKS.
BUT LOOK, WE'RE GOING TO KEEP TRYING.
I'M A MOM OF TWO KIDS.
I HAVE TWO CHILDREN.
I HAVE A LITTLE BOY IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL.
I HAVE A MIDDLE SCHOOLER.
THESE STUDENTS, I HEARD FROM THE EAST HIGH STUDENTS.
THEY CAME UP AND JOINED US AT THE CAPITOL THIS LAST WEEK.
AND THEY SAID PLEASE PROTECT US.
PLEASE, WE NEED YOU TO DO SOMETHING.
WE'RE NOT SAFE.
WE DON'T FEEL SAFE GOING TO SCHOOL.
THEY'RE AFRAID TO GO TO SCHOOL.
WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO OUR CHILDREN TO DO ABSOLUTELY
EVERYTHING THAT WE CAN TO STEM THIS HORRIBLE TIDE.
IT'S NOT HAPPENING IN OTHER COUNTRIES.
YOU DON'T HEAR ABOUT MASS SHOOTINGS.
THERE'S CERTAINLY MENTALLY ILL PEOPLE IN OTHER COUNTRIES.
SO ONE OF THE KEY INGREDIENTS WE BELIEVE IS EASY ACCESS TO
FIREARMS FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE DANGEROUS.
AND WE'VE GOT TO STOP THAT.
- WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT BANNING AR-15S
OR THOSE STYLE OF WEAPONS?
- IT'S SOMETHING CERTAINLY WE SHOULD LOOK AT CAUSE I DO
BELIEVE ALL OPTIONS ARE ON THE TABLE.
I'VE NOT SEEN A PIECE OF LEGISLATION THAT IS CRAFTED IN A
WAY THAT I THINK ISN'T EASY TO GET AROUND.
BECAUSE SOMETIMES WHAT YOU DO -- WE SAW THIS WITH THE FEDERAL
ASSAULT WEAPON BAN, IS IT'S EASY TO GET AROUND.
YOU JUST CHANGE SOMETHING ON A GUN.
SO WE TALKED ABOUT ALSO AMMUNITION CAPACITY LIMITATIONS.
THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING THAT WE ALSO LOOK AT.
BUT WE PROBABLY HAVE NOW 10 TO 15 DIFFERENT PIECES OF GUN
SAFETY LEGISLATION.
NONE OF IT'S MOVING IN THIS LEGISLATURE.
REPUBLICANS ARE STOPPING IT ALL FOR NO GOOD REASON EXCEPT
THEY'RE IN THE GRIP OF THE NRA.
AND THAT'S THE REALITY THAT WE HAVE HERE.
- WE NEED TO LEAVE IT THERE.
REPRESENTATIVE TAYLOR, THANKS VERY MUCH.
- THANK YOU.
- OTHER BILLS IN MOTION THIS WEEK AT THE STATE CAPITOL
INCLUDE ASSEMBLY PASSAGE OF AN $80 MILLION
JUVENILE CORRECTIONS PLAN.
THE BILL NOW HEADS TO THE SENATE WHERE THE OUTCOME IS UNCERTAIN.
ALSO THIS WEEK THE SENATE PASSED A BILL THAT ALLOWS DEVELOPERS TO
FILL NON-FEDERAL WETLANDS WITHOUT A PERMIT.
ALSO NINE OF GOVERNOR WALKER'S TEN SPECIAL SESSION WELFARE
BILLS SAW FINAL PASSAGE THIS WEEK, MOSTLY ALONG PARTY LINES.
THE GOVERNOR CALLED THE RAFT OF BILLS "WISCONSIN WORKS FOR
EVERYONE" WELFARE REFORM.
SEVERAL OF THE MEASURES MADE CHANGES TO WISCONSIN'S FOOD
STAMP PROGRAM CALLED FOODSHARE.
MULTIMEDIA JOURNALIST MARISA WOJCIK EXPLAINS THE CHANGES IN
TONIGHT'S FAST FACTS SEGMENT.
- AN AVERAGE OF 682,000 PEOPLE RECEIVED FOODSHARE BENEFITS IN
WISCONSIN IN 2017.
WISCONSIN FOODSHARE BENEFITS ARE ENTIRELY FEDERALLY-FUNDED.
IN 2015, WORK REQUIREMENTS WERE ESTABLISHED FOR ENROLLEES TO
RECEIVE BENEFITS.
SINCE THEN, 85,981 PEOPLE
HAVE LOST THEIR BENEFITS DUE TO NOT MEETING WORK REQUIREMENTS.
JUST OVER 25,000 HAVE GAINED EMPLOYMENT UNDER THE PROGRAM.
NEW LEGISLATION WOULD REQUIRE ABLE-BODIED PARENTS TO WORK IF
THEIR CHILD IS OVER THE AGE OF SIX.
LEGISLATION WOULD ALSO CHANGE A MINIMUM WORK REQUIREMENT
FROM 20 HOURS PER WEEK TO 30.
- MULTIMEDIA JOURNALIST MARISA WOJCIK ON THE FOODSHARE CHANGES.
IN TONIGHT'S INSIDE LOOK, SOME OF THOSE NUMBERS STAND OUT,
LIKE FOUR TIMES AS MANY PEOPLE LOSING BENEFITS
AS GAINING EMPLOYMENT.
AND THAT'S BEFORE THE LATEST CHANGES TAKE EFFECT.
WE TURN TO REACTION FROM FEEDING WISCONSIN,
THE STATEWIDE NETWORK OF FOOD BANKS
AND ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR DAVID LEE.
THANKS VERY MUCH FOR BEING HERE.
- THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR HAVING ME.
- SO WHY IN YOUR UNDERSTANDING ARE MORE THAN 85,
000 PEOPLE NOT MEETING THE WORK REQUIREMENT AND THEN BEING
INELIGIBLE FOR THEIR FOODSHARE BENEFIT?
- WELL, I THINK THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE IN OUR STATE THAT
EXPERIENCE SOME CHALLENGES TO ENGAGING WITH THE LABOR MARKET,
WHETHER THAT'S JOB TRAINING AS PROVIDED BY FSET
OR JUST REGULAR JOBS, RIGHT.
SO WHILE THE STATE HAS ALLOWED PEOPLE TO SATISFY THEIR WORK
REQUIREMENT OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS BY PARTICIPATING IN FSET,
PEOPLE MAY NOT BE ABLE TO GET TO THE FSET OFFICE OR THEY MIGHT
LACK TRANSPORTATION OR CHILD CARE IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO
PARTICIPATE.
- NOW, YOU SAY FSET AND THAT STANDS FOR FOODSHARE EMPLOYMENT
AND TRAINING PROGRAM?
- THAT'S CORRECT, THE WORK TRAINING PROGRAM.
- YOU HAVE SPOKEN FAVORABLY ABOUT THAT PROGRAM.
- WELL, WE BELIEVE THAT A GOOD JOB IS THE BEST WAY TO FIGHT
HUNGER AND THE BEST WAY OUT OF POVERTY.
I THINK WHEN THE PROGRAM WORKS FOR THE 25,
000 PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN CONNECTED TO JOBS,
I THINK WE CAN ALL AGREE THAT IS A GREAT OUTCOME FOR THEM AND WE
HOPE THAT THEY ARE ON THE WAY TOWARDS A BETTER TOMORROW.
BUT AS YOU MENTIONED, FAR TOO MANY PEOPLE HAVE EITHER BEEN
REFERRED TO THE PROGRAM AND HAVE BEEN AGED OUT OF THE PROGRAM OR
JUST DIDN'T PARTICIPATE.
AND I THINK WHILE THE PROGRAM WORKS FOR THE FOLKS WHO GOT
CONNECTED TO JOBS, FOR THE FOLKS WHO DIDN'T,
I THINK UNDERSTANDING AND FINE-TUNING HOW THE PROGRAM
WORKS CAN ACTUALLY LEAD TO BETTER OUTCOMES FOR THOSE FOLKS.
I THINK THE QUESTION THAT WE'RE REALLY WRESTLING WITH IS HOW DO
WE ENSURE THE PROGRAM WORKS BETTER FOR EVERYBODY?
- ARE PEOPLE LISTENING AT THE STATE LEVEL IN TERMS OF
FINE-TUNING TO MAKE IT WORK BETTER?
- I THINK, WELL, WE -- DURING THE SPECIAL SESSION ON WELFARE
REFORM, WE ASKED OUR LEGISLATORS TO REALLY SLOW DOWN ON THIS
PROCESS, BECAUSE GOOD POLICY TAKES TIME.
AND FROM THE INTRODUCTION OF THE SPECIAL SESSION BILLS THAT
REALLY CHANGED HOW THE FOODSHARE PROGRAM WORKS,
THE WHOLE PROCESS TOOK ABOUT THREE WEEKS.
AND I DON'T KNOW THAT THREE WEEKS IS A GOOD ENOUGH TIME
TO MAKE GOOD POLICY.
- HOW IN YOUR MIND WILL INCREASING THE REQUIRED NUMBER
OF WORK HOURS AFFECT THE NUMBERS OF PEOPLE WHO EITHER GAIN
EMPLOYMENT OR LOSE ELIGIBILITY?
- WE ARE REALLY, REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT THIS.
RIGHT NOW THE WORK REQUIREMENTS AT 20 HOURS.
BY INCREASING IT TO 30 AND ALSO EXPANDING IT TO FAMILIES WITH
CHILDREN, WE BELIEVE THAT REALLY INCREASES THE AMOUNT OF
CHALLENGES THAT PEOPLE WILL EXPERIENCE, RIGHT?
SO WE HELP PEOPLE WITH FOODSHARE THROUGH OUR ORGANIZATION.
WE GIVE THEM GOOD INFORMATION TO MAKE A GOOD DECISION ON THEIR
OWN WHETHER OR NOT THEY TO WANT APPLY.
WE HEAR FROM A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT THEY'RE ALREADY WORKING AND
THEY'RE WORKING 20, 25 HOURS, 28 HOURS.
THEY WANT MORE HOURS, BUT THEY JUST EITHER AREN'T AVAILABLE
WHERE THEY LIVE OR THEY CAN'T GET THEM FROM THEIR EMPLOYER OR
DUE TO SCHEDULING.
THESE ARE FOLKS WHO ARE WORKING HARD,
PLAYING BY THE RULES AND JUST TRYING TO UTILIZE FOODSHARE AS
IT'S INTENDED, AS AN INCOME SUPPORT TO HELP THEM HAVE THE
NUTRITION THEY NEED TO LIVE A BETTER LIFE.
AND WE BELIEVE THAT BY INCREASING THIS WORK
REQUIREMENT, SOME OF THOSE FOLKS ARE REALLY GOING TO SORT OF GET
CAUGHT IN AN UNMANAGEABLE CATCH-22.
- WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE ASSET TEST?
IF SOMEBODY HAS A HOUSE THAT'S $320,000 OR A $20,000 CAR,
SHOULD THEY BE ELIGIBLE FOR FOOD STAMPS?
- I THINK WE SHOULDN'T MAKE POLICY THAT INCENTIVIZES PEOPLE
TO GET RID OF THEIR ASSETS IF THEY FALL ON SOME TEMPORARY
TOUGH TIMES, RIGHT.
LIKE I THINK AS WE KNOW IN TODAY'S DYNAMIC ECONOMY,
THINGS CAN CHANGE ON A DIME.
IF YOU'VE DONE THE RIGHT THING YOUR WHOLE LIFE, BUILT ASSETS,
I DON'T THINK THAT IF YOU LOSE A JOB OR GET INTO A MEDICAL
SITUATION THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO MAYBE SELL YOUR HOUSE IN ORDER
TO QUALIFY FOR REALLY TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE, RIGHT?
I THINK THE ASSET TEST IS REALLY A POLICY AIMED FOR THAT ONE OR
TWO BAD STORIES ABOUT THE PERSON DRIVING SOME EXPENSIVE CAR.
WE DON'T KNOW THAT THAT PERSON DIDN'T HAVE THAT EXPENSIVE CAR
WHEN THEY HAD A GREAT JOB AND SUDDENLY MAY HAVE LOST A JOB DUE
TO A DOWNTURN IN THE ECONOMY AND SOMEHOW STILL NEEDS THAT CAR IN
ORDER TO TAKE THEIR KIDS TO DAY CARE, LOOK FOR NEW JOBS.
I THINK WE WANT TO CREATE A SYSTEM WHERE PEOPLE ARE BUILDING
ASSETS TO GUARD AGAINST POVERTY, RIGHT,
NOT LIQUIDATE ASSETS SO IT'S HARDER TO GET OUT OF POVERTY.
- GOOD POINT. DAVID LEE, THANKS VERY MUCH.
- THANK YOU SO MUCH.
- NOW FOR NEWS ABOUT PUBLIC BROADCASTING AND UW-MADISON.
THAT'S WHERE THE UW BOARD OF REGENTS ANNOUNCED THIS WEEK THAT
AS PART OF THE UW SYSTEM RESTRUCTURING,
WISCONSIN PUBLIC RADIO AND TELEVISION WILL NOW BE PART OF
UW-MADISON.
OUR SERVICES WERE FORMERLY OVERSEEN BY UW-EXTENSION.
OUR BROADCASTING LICENSES, AS BEFORE,
WILL CONTINUE TO BE HELD BY THE BOARD OF REGENTS.
WE EXPECT NO CHANGES IN OUR PROGRAMMING OR POLICIES.
FINALLY TONIGHT, ANOTHER REMINDER THAT STATE SUPREME
COURT CANDIDATES REBECCA DALLET AND MICHAEL SCRENOCK WILL DEBATE
HERE ON WISCONSIN PUBLIC TELEVISION AND RADIO ON FRIDAY
NIGHT, MARCH 30, AT 7:00 P.M.
THAT IS ALL FOR TONIGHT'S PROGRAM.
I'M FREDERICA FREYBERG.
HAVE A GREAT WEEKEND.
- FUNDING FOR "HERE AND NOW" IS PROVIDED, IN PART,
BY FRIENDS OF WISCONSIN PUBLIC TELEVISION.
FOR MORE INFORMATION ON "HERE AND NOW'S" 2018 ELECTION
COVERAGE, GO TO WISCONSINVOTE.ORG.